SUPERFLEX
Das dänische Kollektiv SUPERFLEX wurde im Jahr 1993 von den drei Künstlern Bjørnstjerne Reuter Christiansen (*1969), Jakob Fenger (*1968) und Rasmus Nielsen (*1969) gegründet. Es macht sich seither auf, die Gewissheiten der kapitalistischen Welt insbesondere das Prinzip des Warenwertes, der durch Arbeit oder Tauschhandel generiert wird, auf den Kopf zu stellen. Denn ihre Projekte haben einen starken Bezug zu sozialem Engagement, alternativen Ökonomien und Selbstorganisation. Sie streben auf Partizipation aber auch Emanzipation ihres Publikums. Mit ihren Projekten produzieren sie Gegenstände, die sie als Werkzeuge einsetzen, oder entwickeln Patente, welche darauf abzielen das übliche Kräfteverhältnis zwischen Produzent*in und Konsument*in umzukehren. Sie greifen auf diese Weise in die Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft aus und untersuchen zugleich das Kunstsystem auf seine ökonomischen Strukturen, indem sie beispielsweise das Publikum die Kunst herstellen lassen oder mit einem Röhrensystem, die Geldflüsse symbolisieren, welche ein Kunstmuseum durchdringen. SUPERFLEX greifen Strategien ökonomischen Handelns wie etwa die Mechanismen von Markenidentität oder Wertschöpfungsprozesse auf und entwickeln Modelle einer Gegenökonomie. So auch in COPY LIGHT (2006), einer Werkstatt für Designlampen, welche im Kunstmuseum zu angekündigten Zeiten in Betrieb genommen wird. In dieser Werkstatt stellt das Publikum unter Anleitung der Aufsicht Designlampen her. Dabei können Abbildungen bekannter Designs wahlweise auf transparentem, milchigem oder normalem Papier ausgedruckt werden. Diese bilden dann den eigentlichen Lampenschirm, während die Form des Lampenkörpers, ein Gerüst aus Holz, von SUPERFLEX stammt. Indem die Besucher*in nach ihrem eigenen Geschmack Motive auswählt und die Bestandteile zusammenbaut, erstellt sie eine neue individuelle Designlampe, welche jedoch auf bereits bestehende Lichtkörper verweist. Es stellt sich unweigerlich die Frage, ob nun ein Plagiat, eine Kopie oder ein neues Designprodukt daraus entstanden ist? Wo wird eine Nachahmung selbst wieder zum Original? Solcherart bringt das Kollektiv die Nutzer*in zum Nachdenken und reflektiert zugleich gültiges Markenrecht sowie die daraus entstehenden Widersprüche. Vermeintlich Klares wie der Unterschied zwischen dem Original und seiner Abbildung wird neu beleuchtet. Die Befragung der Konventionen wird von SUPERFLEX jedoch auch auf das Verhältnis zwischen Kunstausstellung und Kunstpublikum ausgeweitet. Denn anhand des Lampenateliers COPY LIGHT werden die traditionellen Rollen zwischen Besucher*in und Künstler*in vertauscht. In COPY LIGHT produziert die Besucher*in das Produkt, nicht die Künstler, obwohl das Künstlerkollektiv die Autorschaft behält. Was bedeutet das nun? Wem gehört die Kunst am Schluss? Beide Fragen werden am letzten Tag der Ausstellung, am Sonntag, 11. November 2018, 15 Uhr höchstwahrscheinlich zur Zufriedenheit aufgelöst. Denn es findet eine Versteigerung der Lampen unter Leitung des Auktionators Bernhard Bischoff (Auktionshaus Kornfeld) statt. Nicht nur kann dann die Produzent*in „ihre“ Lampe ersteigern und ist damit das Besitzverhältnis geklärt, sondern wird der aus der Auktion gewonnene Betrag auf Wunsch von SUPERFLEX einer noch zu bestimmenden Institution zur Wahrung von Markenrechten überwiesen.
Copyright: the artists, Photo: Dominique Uldry
Conversation between Danish art collective SUPERFLEX and curator Kathleen Bühler.
(10. Oktober 2018)
Kathleen Bühler: What is the background of COPY LIGHT FACTORY?
SUPERFLEX: The first lamp we copied and developed was for an earlier project: Supercopy/Biogas PH5 Lamp. It is a copy of the PH5 lamp originally designed by Danish architect Pool Henningsen in 1958. We copied the design and changed the function from electrical to gas in order to create a lamp for people living in areas with no access to electricity. Our interest was to bring the focus back to the original idea by Henningsen, which was to create a lamp with high luminosity that was also affordable for the general population, rather than being an expensive desirable object for the upper class. Such a lamp was therefore built to provide a light source in an area in which there was none. Nonetheless, we ended up receiving a copyright infringement lawsuit form the lamp company that holds the copyrights. Also, factory or manufacture settings are something we have already been engaged with in the past (with Free Beer and Guarana Power for instance) and continue to do so. Such settings can be understood right away or invite visitors to stay or even to come back for another visit. Therefore, through engaging the audience in the process of production and distribution of the lamp, this factory set work allows to engage them into the more complex system of copyright and its entailments in our everyday life.
When and in what context did you develop the project?
The Copy Light/Factory was developed in the context of Copyshop (2005). The story initially starts with the concept of Supercopy, developed after a period spent in Bangkok working on the Supergas project. We became inspired by the dynamics of copy and appropriation methods used in business and urban culture of Bangkok, which lead us to do some experimental works such as the Supercopy/Biogas PH5 lamp and Supercopy/Lacoste (between 2002 and 2007). In 2005, Copyshop came about as the name of a shop that also served as an information forum investigating the phenomenon of copying while offering products that challenge the idea of intellectual property as it prevails within the current economic order. It can be modified originals, improved copies, political anti-brands, that eventually become new originals after being taken up by users. Within such a context, Copy Light discusses the control of value in the market through the processes of production and distribution in order to communicate the problems of copyright using famous designs of lamps.
During all these years of investigating the concept of copyright and its implications in society, we were confronted with the power of copyright and trademark systems when we were accused of copyright infringement. This made us think about such systems and react to them. We have since used the language and methods of the copyright empire but turned these upside down, as, in our understanding, intellectual property law is based on an ideology and language that is constantly forming, therefore in need to be continuously challenged. We believe in the idea of « if value, then copy » and are more interested in an open culture than in protecting rights. We find that making proposals and models is the most effective ways for us in this particular context in which we have chosen to work, to make a difference. Therefore, Copy Light/Factory is a model that enables you to question the fundamental nature of rights and plays at the same time with your desire for good design and objects.
Where and when has it been shown so far?
Copy Light/Factory has been exhibit in many places around the world, including:
2008: « If value, then copy », solo exhibition, Artspace, Auckland (New Zealand)
2009: « Winter Light », group exhibition, 1301PE, Los Angeles (CA, USA)
2010: « Philagrafika 2010: The Graphic Unconscious », Group exhibition, Philagrafika, Tyler School of Art, Temple University, Philadelphia (PA, USA); « Manufacturing Today », group exhibition, Kulturbunker Dora, Trondheim (Norway); « Fair Use: Information Piracy and Creative Commons in Art and Design », group exhibition, Glass Curtain Gallery, Columbia College, Chicago (IL, USA)
2011: « Modern Times Forever », solo exhibition, Jousse-Entreprise, Paris (France)
2012: « Salons. Convivialité, Écologie et Vie Pratique », group exhibition, Domaine départemental de Chamarande – Centre d’art contemporain, Chamarande (France) ; « Print/Out », group exhibition, MoMA Museum of Modern Art, New York (NY, USA)
2013: «Working Title: A Retrospective Curated by XXXXXXXXX », solo exhibition, Kunsthal Charlottenborg, Copenhagen (Denmark); « Ways of working: the incidental object », group exhibition, Fondazione Merz, Turin (Italy); « The Corrupt Show and the Speculative Machine », solo exhibition, Fundación Jumex, Mexico City (Mexico)
2016: « On Repeat: The Disruptive Copy », group exhibition, Te Uru Waitakere Contemporary Gallery, Auckland (New Zealand); « It is Permitted to Permit », Museum of Tomorrow, solo exhibition, Rio De Janeiro (Brazil)
2017: « SUPERFLEX at Tate Exchange », event, Tate Modern, London (UK)
Does the project always work in the same way, no matter where you show it? Or is there a difference in the reception if you show it in an institution?
The work is participatory of course, no matter where it is exhibited and it works the same way as an active manual or as we call it « tool ». With Copy Light/Factory in particular, the production, the dismantling and the distribution (via an auction) of the lamps at the closing of the exhibition becomes an active engagement with the public. However, there are differences from one exhibition to another, depending on how the institution and how the people engage with the work. Differences can also occur due to how the public engages with the topic and the context within which the work is displayed. For instance, in a group show or a solo exhibition, the reception may differ. Moreover, the way the curator has framed the work naturally defines the reception.
For instance, Copy Light/Factory was part of the group show « Print/Out » (2012) at MOMA New York alongside other artists’ works. The curatorial framework was related to the print-making field and print as a medium for experimenting with appropriation; whereas in Kunsthal Charlottenborg, the work was displayed in a solo exhibition in which it has been picked up by one of the eight curators, therefore acquired a different meaning in the way it was put together with other of our artworks. Hilde Teerlinck’s curatorial choice was driven by his interest in copies, copyright and interactive workshops through which (re)creation can be made in collaboration with the public.
Where there surprises for you, in how people reacted to the piece? Lessons learned?
The main lesson learned from the several times this work has been exhibited is that we have to pay more attention to people’s understanding of their participation to the workshop. This means that we need to make sure that they clearly understand they are being part of an actual production chain and that the work they contribute to producing is going to be in display. Indeed, we have noticed that often when people can engage with this work in an art institution they do it playfully and creatively, without following the manual provided. In other words, we learned that there is an element of quality check we needed to introduce in order to make sure that the participants are fully aware of their role: in a way, they are also a labor force when taking part in the workshop.
How would you formulate the value-issue in regard to this work?
It is implicit in the idea of the work as it questions and challenges the concepts of copyright and trademark. The quality or value regarding this work is often understood by the participants who take part in the workshop. As they are part of the production of the work that will be eventually auctioned, they are also producers of the value that such work would have in the end, whether intellectual or monetary.
In what way is the work typical for you?
This work is typical in many regards. It is an interactive workshop in which the audience is invited to take part of the production of an original lamp that communicates the problems of the current copyright system. After being constructed, those lamps are hung in the exhibition space as they are made, gradually filling and illuminating the space. In this sense, the visitor/participant never really gets a complete picture of the project until the last day of the show, during which an auction takes place. People can then acquire a work that multiple individuals have produced. The dismantling and distribution of the lamps at the closing of the exhibition becomes an active engagement with the public, who by taking the object with them become partners in questioning and confronting the copyright empire. While the works thereby produced raised issues within the exhibition space, they continue to be discussed in private homes while illuminating the dining table. Although similar to others of our « tools » in the sense that it is not a finished product but rather consists of instructions for doing and calls for participation; Copy Light/Factory does carry many other specificities, the way it implicitly exposes the contemporary consciousness and our evolving relationship to global consumerism, value and copyright. The way it is investigating through active participation of the public broader questions related to community resources and social relations.
What made you choose this work for the “République Géniale” exhibition which is also a homage to the thinking of Robert Filliou? How does the project relate to Robert Filliou? To which concepts in particular?
Copy Light/Factory displays works and working methods that explore and represent the various principles of collective collaboration. Such principles are utilized to deal with an economic system from which all elements of production, distribution and use are involved. Thereby the workshop becomes a production site of value. The idea developed by French artist Robert Filliou of teaching and learning through art is clearly related to the concept of the workshop format and active participation of the public. Copy Light/Factory is illustrative of how collectively practicing art can be an efficient way to challenge certain issues while involving the audience, as well as a way to practice and present – as Filliou claimed. In this way, the work can be seen as a platform offering insights on various topics and allowing exchange of artistic skills through interactive participation. This work therefore relates to the value system that Robert Filliou has engaged and working with: the collective power and the potential in working together.
Did you know about his poetic economy-principle?
Yes. Bjornstjerne Christiansen knew Robert Filliou professionally and personally, as he collaborated with his father Henning Christiansen since 1969. One of their famous collaborations took place under the framework of « poetical economy ». It is a sound sculpture called Seelenhaus for Robert Filliou in the shape of a green plexiglass house containing a speaker playing a sound work originally performed by Henning Christiansen and Robert Filliou.
Copyright: the artists, Photo: Dominique Uldry
Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein, République Géniale
Schlagwörter: Ausstellung, Künstlergespräch, République Géniale, Robert Filliou
